I was reading an article about Bill Gates giving up control of Microsoft sometime next year and thought occurred to me. (Probably several of you have had the same thought.) If I was Bill Gates and saw what is already happening to his company, all the failures Zune, Microsoft Office, Vista.., what would I do to save my company. I mean this is his baby, something that he worked, at least a little bit, his whole career to build into the behemoth it is today, and now at the end of my career I need to hand over the company to business men, not programmers, and cross my fingers and hope that is doesn't die within a year. I wouldn't be too comfortable with that thought.

I was thinking the best thing that Bill Gates could do for his company would be to make it OpenSource. I mean he has nothing to gain from it not being OpenSource. The more Microsoft fails the more people are going to look to Linux to fill the void. Linux is becoming more and more commonplace. I have seen it in the past year even here in North Platte, NE. A place full of farmers and hicks are now asking about Linux. That is a wake-up call to Microsoft. If I was Bill Gate and had as much money as he does, all I would care about is the continuation of my company. That is my legacy. If I don't want it to die a quick death I would make it OpenSource just as I hand over control.

Probably have a better chance of having Gates hand the company to me than it becoming OpenSource. But the more I think about it the more it makes sense to me for Gates to make Windows OpenSource. If nothing else it will get all the Linux fanboys to stop sending me hatemail and all those damn viruses!

It is a good idea and certainly would be great for the open source community (imagine having all that extra source code to play with!)
However, even if it did cross his mind, there is a problem. Microsoft is a huge multi-national company with many shareholders and stakeholders. I'm sure they would have something to say about it, seeing as they would be the ones losing out.

Intriguing, but likely not to happen anytime. What makes you think MS Office is a failure or even Vista? Lets say the code was opened up today, I could almost guarantee that it would be obliterated and started over. The MS kernel would be ditched, etc,etc,etc ad infinitum.

Just my take on the matter.

Is this a joke? To imply that M$ got big because it was run by "programming" types rather than "business" types ignores the entire history of this company.

M$' growth was due early on to business/marketing savvy. (Hell they didn't even write DOS - they bought it.) Later growth was due to what many (including me) believe to be monopolistic practices such as requiring vendors to ship their software if they wanted their OS. Excel, Word and Access didn't become defacto standards for business because they were supperior but rather because they were "free" early on. Once M$ had gotten to that point of course no one gets those software packages for free any more but the ones they supplanted having lost major market share aren't around as an option any longer.

Also you apparently missed the fact that Bill "stepped down" as CEO a long time ago and Stephen Balmer is filling that role. Bill has been "chief developer" since then but I doubt he's been writing much code in that position.

He's a mega-billionaire and has so much money he can give $10 billion away - I doubt seriously he is worried much about M$ future. He is smart enough to have diversified long ago.

I have had visions of Bill Gates calling a press conference and acknowledging open-source as the wave of the future (after of course unloading some of his MS stock.. )-----Don't hold your breath.
Corporate leaders have traditionally clung to their "comfort zone" until the font size in the handwriting-on-the-wall became unbearably large. Gates could well typify the exception to this--since he is at the core a geek. What would stop him is his seeming addiction to wealth and power.

The more likely scenario is that the younger insiders at MS--who are good at reading handwriting in **small** fonts---will sloooooowly force an evolutionary change process.

One also hopes that a competent and honest US government would get back to the job of policing the corporate bad apples such as MS.

I will drink to that.

Drink to that too, OK thats my limit, no driving for me.

I think that MS will just get better at imitating the Linux distribution model. Publicly available betas of Vista seem to be a case in point. Mono is another and they have been planning some open-source projects of their own. In another few years, a basic Windows may be available at low cost, maybe for free, with the money coming from subscriptions to patches, services and add-on software. Vista hasn't been a great financial success so far - something they could have avoided if they had abandoned their outdated business model and adopted a subscription system. If they did, they wouldn't need to resort to all sorts of dirty tricks to force people into their newest OS, the money would be streaming in anyhow. And they wouldn't have anything to worry about if their tricks weren't entirely successful. I'm sure they'll eventually realize that WGA and other prohibitive measures may be hunting people away rather than making them pay up for their illegal XP.

>> "... Lets say the code was opened up today, I could almost guarantee that it would be obliterated and started over. The MS kernel would be ditched, etc,etc,etc ad infinitum."

i donno what will happen if its true ... could be hell ... !! ^_^


//i hope that that day wont come forever ...


.

A lot of you seem to think that Microsoft share holders would stop them from going OpenSource when I think it would be just the opposite. Share holders aren't stupid that notice trends, look at what has happened in the past, as well as what looks to be the future. I think share holders would welcome Microsoft becoming OpenSource. Sure people wouldn't have to buy Windows, but most people only buy windows to get the support. Microsoft could still be like Novell and Red Hat. Provide a free version without support and a version you pay for where you get support and a bunch of extras.(What the extras would be I don't know but...). If Microsoft annouced they were going to go OpenSource you would have some share holders object but you're gonna have that with any announcement. The majority will see this a a great move to takeout Apple and Linux as competition. I mean you take the most widely used OS in the world and give people a free alternative. How many consumers would choose any other OS? Especially the average user that really doesn't want to mess around with the computer..well..at all.

As for call Vista and Office a failure it didn't do nearly as good as Microsoft had anticipated. As far as Microsoft, Bill Gates, is concerned they were failures.

I like your idea but I think Microsoft should actually start a new development branch from Windows. Since they are supposedly building their next OS from scratch I think it would be nice of them to open up code from Windows 2000 to before, including filesystems. I think they should still develop Windows closed source to protect the public at large that uses their software and to somewhat keep the balance between Linux, Windows, and Mac intact.

We forget that Microsoft like Red Hat and Novell is a company and is out to make money and a profit but unlike Red Hat and Novell they aim to more desktop users and large scale companies. Keep Windows closed source for the most part will protect their interest plus many of the companies we have all come to know, love and use on a daily basis and that includes minor services we often neglect such as ATM machines. So a closed source Windows is needed for the safety and security of those who are not as tech saavy as we.

What could be helpful is if they decided to open up code for Windows 2000 and back because no doubt they have built code to replace it but the code that they used then could further advance Linux development and refine distributions that are more user friendly and it could cannabilize sales of Windows but it could offer them a cheaper version of an OS to release in third world countries for a fraction of the cost of the Vista Home Basic. I don't think they should open up XP and Vista code until after the support cycle has run its full course, including online support, only because they would effectively be shooting themselves in the foot but by opening up Windows 2000 code you open up the code for the NT base itself which could further enrich networking for large companies on multiple platforms and it could stand to cause more open source software to be created for operating systems they have abandoned.

I don't think they should stop at the operating systems but also at software such as Office 2000. They could open source it for individual users and charge for volume licensing and various levels of support and really take a run at StarOffice and OpenOffice.org. This could create one of the greatest alliances: Microsoft and Google. With Google's web presence and Microsoft's software Google Apps for your domain could now contain an exchange compatible email client along with its current offering of a full featured word processor, spreadsheet progream, web and desktop search, and image editor. This could put Microsoft in a better position to compete with Apple and give Google a seat at Microsoft's table to ensure their search capability and advertisement channels, are Windows first picks and kill off the struggling Live branding. This could also allow Microsoft to use Google patents and apps in its own software that could allow it to keep itself afloat while it turn the XBox profitable and enters the Home Entertainment market not just through a gaming console.

One of the MAJOR advantages of open source is that code is able to be reviewed and made better by many more people. The problem with Microsoft vs. open source is that MS has a very finite number of programmers working on the bugs and features. Open source utilizes the capabilities and imaginations of many more folks. Not to mention that the people who work open source *like to do it*, and don't just do a half-butte job for their paychecks.

I doubt that very much. A lot of people don't realize that they buy Windows. It just simply comes with their new PC.

>> "It just simply comes with their new PC."

but that doesnt work with open source ...


.

Your probably right about that. But this was more an attack on manufacturers. What I meant was if they supports Linux as much as the supported Windows, Linux would probably have more users than Windows. It has just been the fact that installing Linux has usually meant that people were on there own if they messed-up there computer. If the manufacturers gave tech support to Linux, like they do Windows, then people would be less afraid of it.

Moved: This thread is more suitable in General and has been moved accordingly to help your thread/question get the exposure it deserves.